IMMUNITY
Defined
Immunity is defined as the ability of Innate Intelligence to maintain
metabolic equilibrium in the body in the environments in which man
finds himself; or that power of Innate Intelligence to rid the
living body of poisons and invading organisms; or that resistance
which is accomplished through the expression of mental impulses in
the tissue cells whereby all invading microörganisms or toxins are
expelled from the body, thereby enabling the normal expression of
life in the body. The degree of immunity may be represented by the
degree of intellectual adaptation possible in the body, and this in
turn depends upon the freedom in the transmission of mental impulses
through the spinal nerves. Immunity may be considered as the degree
of protection which Innate is able to give the body and varies from
a slight adaptation to the utmost adaptation or protection from all
invading agencies.
Immunity is one of the most interesting and yet the most illusive
and complicated subjects which we will have to consider from the
standpoint of chiropractic philosophy, for in order to understand
immunity we must understand the adaptative processes carried on
within the body. From time immemorial man has made an effort to
immunize himself from the ravages of dis-ease. In former times he
tried to accomplish this through the use of charms which led to many
superstitious practices, some remnants of which have survived to the
present day. In recent years large sums of money have been expended
in scientific research in an effort to discover the secret which
would make the human race immune from dis-ease, but to no avail.
It is a recognized fact that great good has been accomplished in
improving conditions and creating an environment in which there
might be a more perfect expression of life with less necessity for
an excessive expenditure of adaptative energy. But man himself
has not been made immune by these methods. The procedure has been
wrong for the cause of dis-ease is not in man’s environment, but
within man himself. Chiropractic will accomplish the most desired
end by restoring to normal the transmission of mental impulses to
all parts of the body so there may be a complete adaptation to all
environmental conditions that may arise. The body will then be
protected from the supposedly deadly microörganisms that are accused
of being responsible for human ills.
If the public could read what the hygienists have to say on the
subject of immunology and could read it in the light of chiropractic
philosophy they would realize that chiropractic adjustments will
not only restore health to the sick, but will prevent the well from
getting sick.
In order that the student may understand the subject more fully
we will now consider briefly in a general way some of the former
theories of immunity and then take up a careful study of the
chiropractic philosophy of immunity.
On page 528 of _Preventive Medicine and Hygiene_, by Rosenau, we
read: “We are still ignorant of the mechanism by which the body
protects itself against many dis-eased states.” He also gives us the
idea that the mechanism of immunity varies not only in different
infections, but in the same infection when under different and
varying conditions.
Natural Immunity
Immunity is classed as natural, acquired and artificial. Natural
immunity is that natural resistance of Innate Intelligence through
the activity in the normal body whereby all invading organisms and
poisons, as well as all the products of katabolism are excreted
before they have an opportunity to act upon the tissues or otherwise
interfere with the vital processes in the body.
Acquired Immunity
Acquired immunity is the result of the adaptative processes of Innate
Intelligence during the time the so-called dis-ease is active in the
body which results in the recovery of the patient. To illustrate:
During the attack of measles there is an adaptative process carried
on which results in the recovery of the patient. During the process
of this adaptation Innate produces changes in the body which makes
possible the excretion of this kind of poison when introduced into
the body in the future. It is a recognized fact, however, that having
a dis-ease will not always prevent the recurrence of the dis-ease. In
other words, to put it in the terminology familiar to all, having a
dis-ease will not always produce immunity.
Artificial Immunity
Artificial immunity is classified as active and passive. George
M. Price, M.D., in his _Hygiene and Public Health_, says: “Active
immunity is produced by the following conditions: (1) Recovery
from dis-ease. (2) Inoculation with virulent living bacteria. (3)
Vaccination with attenuated bacteria; (4) with dead bacteria; (5)
with bacterial extracts. Passive immunity is conferred by antitoxins
and serums.”
The idea here presented is that the immunity is active if it is
the result of a necessity for internal intellectual adaptation on
the part of Innate Intelligence, and when this adaptation takes
place there will be immunity from further attacks. That the passive
immunity is produced by the introduction of antitoxins or serums
taken from the bodies of animals in whose bodies these adaptative
processes have taken place.
There is no possible way of producing immunity except by creating
a condition in the body which will enable Innate Intelligence to
transmit the mental impulses to the tissues in such quantity and
quality that there may be perfect adaptation carried on regardless of
the character of the poison or microörganism that may be introduced
into or manufactured within the body.
Exhaustion Theory
In 1888 Pasteur advanced the exhaustion theory wherein he maintained
that the body which had no food for the germ to feed upon would be
immune; in other words, when the food supply was used up the germ
could no longer develop and grow. An illustration of this is the
yeast which will cease to grow when the sugar in the culture media is
exhausted. This theory was rejected but has since been revived and
is now considered to have some merit. This theory comes very nearly
agreeing with the chiropractic idea, which will be discussed later.
Retention Theory
Another theory is that of Chaveau, which is known as the retention
theory. This is just the opposite of the exhaustion theory and
maintains that the products of metabolism within the microörganisms,
the excreta of the germs, form a toxin or a substance which is
retained in the body of the host and protects it against the growth
and development of the germs, in this way producing immunity.
That which can not be used in the metabolism of an organism will
naturally be excreted, for if it is allowed to remain in the body
it will impair the tissues. The excreta of the germ then can not be
used in its own metabolism and is therefore a poison to the germ as
well as to the host. This waste accumulates until the germ eventually
is destroyed by the poison of its own excreta. This is given as an
explanation of self-limited dis-eases. It is further explained by
this theory that this poisonous excreta of the germ is retained in
the secretions of the body of the host and acts as a protection
against further invasion, for when other germs of the same character
enter the body they come in contact with this poison and are
destroyed. In this way immunity is supposed to be maintained. But
this is not logical, since the excreta of these germs can not be used
in the metabolic processes of the human body. It is a poison and will
be dealt with by Innate as such. Innate does one of two things when
poison enters the body or when it is manufactured within the body.
One is to eliminate it through the normal channels of excretion; the
other is to produce an antidote in the form of an internal secretion
to neutralize the poison. In either event the excreta of the germ
would lose its potency as a germicide and could therefore have
nothing to do with the production of immunity.
Various Theories
Again, it is claimed that the phagocytes perform a very important
function in protecting the body against invading microörganisms by
attacking, destroying and digesting them. Another theory is that
the antibodies of various kinds play an important part in keeping
the body free from undesirable invaders. It is also asserted that
immunity is produced in a negative way by the absence of a specific
affinity between the tissue cells and the toxin.
Immunity may be the result, according to other theories, of a
positive factor due to the presence of antibodies which neutralize
the toxins. In some cases immunity is associated directly with cell
activity while in others it is resident in the blood and fluids of
the body. Rosenau further says, “The unsatisfactory state of our
knowledge in certain fields of immunity is well illustrated in the
case of anthrax. The mechanism of protection is not at all understood
in this infection, which was the first and classic illustration of
a germ dis-ease. The mechanism of immunity in common colds is also
complex and obscure.”
Many other authors could be quoted to show that the real philosophy
of immunity is not understood nor why a germ will seem to cause
dis-ease in one individual and not in another. But this is sufficient
to indicate the unsatisfactory results that have been obtained in
research work along this line.
Adaptability of the Body
It is a known fact that there is a wide range of adaptability and a
vast difference in the vital resistance of different individuals, and
even in the same individual at different times. There must be some
reason for this difference.
It is also a known fact that an individual may be apparently well
one day and sick the next, although there may be no change in the
subluxations existing in the spine of the individual. Environmental
conditions are constantly arising which necessitate adaptative
action on the part of Innate Intelligence. This action must be in
addition to the normal action taking place under the normal and
usual environments. In order to accomplish this increased functional
activity the current must be increased to accomplish this, the
carrying capacity of the nerve must be greater than the current
necessary to maintain the ordinary metabolic process in the body.
Under the stress of environmental necessity it is possible for Innate
Intelligence to increase the functional current of mental impulses
up to the full carrying capacity of the nerve, and to augment the
functional activity at the periphery to the full capability of the
physical structure to express that current of mental impulses. Were
it not for this possibility of increased functional activity there
could be no adaptative processes in the body. In order that there may
be an increase in the functional activity there must be an increase
in the functional current of mental impulses. This necessitates that
the current transmitted under normal conditions be less than the
carrying capacity of the nerve.
Psychologists tell us there is a certain amount of reserve energy
stored up in the body. Chiropractic maintains that it is not a matter
of energy being stored up, but that this reserve energy is a question
of increasing the functional current so as to increase the process of
adaptation in the tissues. The degree of adaptation is represented
by the difference in the current transmitted through a nerve under
normal conditions, and that transmitted when the full carrying
capacity of the nerve is taxed. In other words, the reserve energy is
the difference between the current that is being transmitted and that
which it is possible to have transmitted.
As the adaptative action is increased in response to the necessity
there will be, in adverse ratio, a decrease in the reserve carrying
capacity of the nerve. In other words, as the current is decreased
the reserve carrying capacity of the nerve is increased. The degree,
therefore, of vital resistance is represented by the reserve carrying
capacity of the nerve and as this is decreased there will be a like
decrease in the vital resistance of the body.
Some individuals are immune from certain so-called contagious
dis-eases and we are told that this is because the vital resistance
is greater in them than it is in others. This statement is true, but
there should be some reason for this difference in resistance and
Chiropractic gives us that reason. The possibility for adaptative
action in the body is decreased by subluxations in the spine and its
degree depends upon the combination of subluxations, the functions
involved and the organs in which the functions are expressed
abnormally.
The question, however, arises that if there are subluxations in the
spine, why are there no incoördinations but merely the possibility of
decreased adaptation. To this question there is a specific answer.
It is contained in the principles involved in and underlying the
philosophy of Chiropractic, therefore it is not possible here to go
into details. It can be considered from a general viewpoint only.
There may be a combination of subluxations existing in the spine and
yet not enough pressure to prevent Innate Intelligence getting a
current through great enough to meet all the ordinary demands of the
average environment. But when subluxations do exist and a condition
arises necessitating increased functional activity, Innate, because
of the decreased carrying capacity, is unable to increase the current
of the periphery. Hence adaptation can not take place and there is
incoördination which would not have obtained if the carrying capacity
of the nerves had not been decreased by the subluxation. It must
be remembered that even in the normal condition when there are no
subluxations, health is a question of intellectual adaptation; that
dis-ease is a question of the lack of intellectual adaptation. As
the possibilities of intellectual adaptation are decreased, the
possibilities of incoördination are increased.
An individual will be immune so long as the carrying capacity of
the nerves remain normal or so long as the carrying capacity is not
decreased. Germs ingested or taken into the body will be excreted
as so much waste material and will not be permitted to remain in
the body. This is not only true of germs and microörganisms, but of
all poisons. The carrying capacity of the nerves is limited, but in
the normal condition is 100%. If the poison introduced is stronger
than the internal resistance then the meeting of the two forces will
produce a concussion, and if this concussion is greater than the
normal resistance of the spine a subluxation will be produced. In
this way an individual may be immune from one poison and not another,
or from one particular germ and not another, or he may be immune at
one time and not at another time. For the philosophy of subluxations
being produced by poison, the student is referred to Chiropractic
Library, Vol. V, Palmer, under the heading of poisons.
The particular mechanism of immunity is not so vital so long as
we understand that it is produced by the operation of Innate
Intelligence, and know what is necessary to enable Innate to produce
this condition.
Under the exhaustion theory of Pasteur it was maintained that when
food upon which germs fed was exhausted they could no longer develop
and the body in which there was no food for the germs would be immune
from the germ dis-eases. Chiropractic maintains that the germ is a
scavenger and feeds upon dead tissue, never upon live tissue; that
there must be a proper culture media for the development of the
germs and this can obtain only in tissue that is below the normal
condition. Therefore, if the tissues are maintained in a state
of normality by the normal transmission and expression of mental
impulses, there will be no food for the germs and they will be
excreted. On the other hand, if the tissues are below normal in their
resistive powers, due to the interference with the transmission of
mental impulses, the germs finding food and a culture media conducive
to their development will remain and multiply and their excreta will
act as a poison and necessitate a further process of adaptation, the
character of the symptoms depending entirely upon the character of
the poison produced.
It is not necessary to kill the germ that the patient may recover.
All that is necessary is to adjust the subluxation or subluxations
that are causing the interference with the transmission so the
tissues may become normal and the germs will starve to death and be
excreted as dead material.
Dis-ease the Cause of Germs
Dr. Alexander M. Ross, Fellow of the Royal Society of England,
said in speaking of germs, “They are the result, not the cause, of
dis-ease. They are scavengers; their legitimate work is to clean out
the sewers of our bodies.”
John B. Fraser, M.D., CM., writes, “The reasons for questioning the
germ theory are mainly three, viz.:
“1st. The divergent views of bacteriologists as to which germ caused
the dis-ease.
“2nd. The stronger claim of the bio-chemic theory.
“3rd. The absence of germs at the onset of dis-ease (as the following
sample cases show).
“(a) A man crossing a river broke through the ice, was rescued,
later became ill, and the doctor, fearing pneumonia, tested for
pneumo-cocci—there were none present; when the pneumonia developed
they appeared.
“(b) After an oyster supper some men had cramps and diarrhœa,
followed by typhoid fever—no Eberth bacilli were present in the first
stools, but were present later.
“(c) Hurrying, a girl arrived at her shop sweating; as the shop was
cold, she became very chilly; next day complained of a sore throat,
but no Klebs-Loffler bacilli were found; later, when a diphtheretic
patch appeared, the bacilli were present.
“Here in each case the bacilli followed the onset of the dis-ease.
“Believing that the above germs were the result and not the cause
of the dis-eases, tests of the germs of diphtheria, typhoid and
pneumonia were made.
“The first test was whether the Klebs-Loffler bacilli would cause
diphtheria, and about 50,000 were swallowed without any result. Later
100,000, 500,000 and a million and more were swallowed, and in no
case did they cause any ill-effect.
“The series of tests was to decide whether the Eberth bacillus would
cause typhoid, but each test was negative; even when millions were
swallowed. The third series of tests showed that one could swallow
a million (and over) pneumo-cocci without causing pneumonia, or any
disturbance.
“The investigations covered about two years and forty-five (45)
different tests were made, giving an average of fifteen tests each. I
personally tested each germ (culture) before allowing the others to
do so; and six persons (3 male, 3 female) knowingly took part in the
tests and in no case did any symptoms of the dis-ease follow.
“The germs were swallowed in each case, and were given in milk,
water, bread, cheese, meat, head-cheese, fish, and apples—also tested
on the tongue.
“Most of the cultures were grown by myself—some from stock tubes
furnished by Parke, Davis & Co., and one tube furnished by the
Toronto Board of Health through one of their bacteriologists.
“As the tests were carefully made, they prove that there is not the
danger from germs that bacteriologists claim; they also may stimulate
other Canadians to undertake further experimental work, for the
actual test on man decides the truth of the theory.”
Germs Do Not Cause Dis-ease
Germs do not cause dis-ease, but they may be considered as any
other foreign substance taken into the body, which can not be used
in its metabolism. Any foreign substance which can not be used in
the processes of metabolism will injure the tissues if allowed to
remain in the body. If germs are taken into the body and if there are
subluxations which prevent Innate from producing normal function in
excreting these germs, and if there is waste material due to impaired
metabolism, these germs will find a culture medium conducive to their
development; then in their natural processes of development and
metabolic processes, secretion and excretion, toxins will be formed
which will result in certain symptoms from such poisons, all due to
the fact that there are subluxations producing pressure upon nerves
interfering with the transmission of mental impulses.
Immunity, then, is a question of keeping the body in such a physical
condition that there will be no abnormal tissue upon which the germs
may feed. But this would imply that in order to have dis-ease there
must first be abnormal tissue AND the germs. This, however, is not
the case for there may be dis-ease without the presence of the germ,
even in the so-called germ dis-eases. Dis-ease is not a question
of germs being present, but it is the decreased current of mental
impulses to the tissue cells.
The best way to produce immunity is to have the subluxations adjusted
so there may be a normal transmission of impulses to all parts of
the body so that intellectual adaptation may be at par. Immunity
from any and all dis-eases may be produced by the restoration of
transmission. This does not mean that after momentum has been gained
dis-ease will be at once overcome and the process of restoration
will be accomplished without a sufficient amount of time to enable
Innate Intelligence to bring about the necessary processes of
restoration. But we do mean to say that if all subluxations were
adjusted the individual would be immune from all incoördinations.
Still subluxations could be produced by trauma and also by the
introduction of poisons into the body. In order to maintain constant
immunity the individual should periodically visit his chiropractor
for an analysis. By so doing subluxations that have been produced may
be detected and adjusted.